Due to the preponderance of replies to my letter to the editor ("Reaching out to athletes on their level," March 17), I feel compelled to clear up misconceptions about my intentions. For those who didn't read it, my letter was a ludicrous story implying that athletes were not intelligent enough to read a column ("Athletes at Brown," March 16) by Lily Rayman-Read '06 that praised their intellects. It was not remotely serious, as I had assumed was implied by its outlandish nature.
First of all, I apologize to athletes who didn't get the joke. Many members of the athletic community are particularly sensitive to the "jock" myth and I did not mean to offend them. I have nothing in particular against athletes - in fact, I was one in high school. As such, I agree with much of Rayman-Read's article; Athletes do have demanding time commitments, they are at least as smart as the non-athletic population and they deserve the respect of everyone at Brown. Why then, you might ask, did I bother writing this letter? The answer is simple: Rayman-Read's article, in attempting to eliminate misconceptions about athletes, perpetuated stereotypes of Brown non-athletes as biased and lacking in school spirit.
First, her article was predicated on the notion that Brown's student body does not respect athletes. In my experience, that is as much of a fallacy as the "jock" myth. Her accusation that athletes and non-athletes are unable "to interact and maintain social relationships" strikes me as bizarre. Many of my closest friends are involved in Brown athletics, and we have no trouble interacting with each other. Perhaps this is because I am a first-year, with less experience at Brown than upperclassmen. Perhaps my group of friends is an exception to the rule. Perhaps a gap between athletes and non-athletes exists unbeknownst to me.
But Rayman-Read's article didn't stop there. It then stated, in unequivocal terms, "we have no school spirit." This generalization is at least as one-dimensional and flawed as any myths about athletes. First, Brown students exhibit pride in their university in a variety of ways unrelated to athletics. Additionally, how can Rayman-Read assert that she "only sees athletes in the stands" at sporting events? I have no idea how the percentage of attendance breaks down, but my presence at such functions indicates that non-athletes are cheering for Brown as well.
In short, Rayman-Read's stereotyping of non-athletes was, to me, ridiculous. Thus, I responded in kind. And although Zoe Ripple's '05 reply to my letter ("Bohlen's stereotyping isn't funny," March 21) misunderstood my intentions, her description of my assertions as "simplistic and erroneous" was right on. That was the point. A complex, nuanced and anti-athletic statement could not have been taken as anything but a serious expression of my beliefs. A ridiculous stereotyping of athletes, on the other hand, could not be read as anything but a joke. Or so I had assumed.
So why did so many people misunderstand my intentions? You didn't have to find my letter amusing to conclude that a piece of writing which referenced the author of a children's book series as a literary exemplar was not in earnest. Whether you call it satire or crude humor, it was still a joke. So why did so many people take me seriously? Has an obsession with political correctness created a community so sensitive that it cannot take a potentially provocative statement as anything but an insult? Or is the "non-jock" myth so widespread that people actually believe anti-athletic bias exists throughout the Brown student body in the rough and unrefined form indicated by my letter? Either way, how can individuals such as Ripple assert that I was being sarcastic while simultaneously claiming that my letter was not written in jest?
Obviously, a lot of people got the joke and did not feel the need to voice their opinion on the matter. The fact that so many people did not get it, however, concerns me. Satire, one of the most useful literary devices for pointing out and correcting absurdities within one's community, becomes useless in the face of arbitrary political correctness. And although satire at Brown is not dead yet, the reaction to my letter has convinced me that it remains on life support.
Some people may think Casey Bohlen '08 has a crude sense of humor, but he likes writing to The Herald anyways.
